The Alchemist on 15/10/2006 at 16:02
Internet commando? Do we just assume that we're all assholes these days?
Quote Posted by Alchemist
I dont see a shotgun, and after all that it was a justified shot, I'd say.
I had originally posted the video to illustrate the fact that it wasnt as gruesome as someone had mentioned (shotgun to the back), I only mentioned that I figured there probably could have been a less lethal way of neutralising the guy but shit, I'm not starting some sort of vigil against him or anything? The shot was definitely justified.
Internet commando? Fucking christ.
Malygris on 15/10/2006 at 16:34
There comes a point during the commission of a criminal act at which the perpetrator of said act gives up his right to a non-lethal takedown. In a situation in Canada awhile back, some idiot got himself involved in a brawl, ended up tangling with police officers trying to break it up, pulled a knife and "lunged" at two of them and ended up with some lead in his ear for his trouble. In spite of howls from family and friends, the shooting was cleared as justified, and maybe somebody somewhere learned the lesson: if you don't want to be shot by the cops, don't fucking attack them with knives.
Same thing with tank buddy. Okay, ha ha, you had your fun, got to drive your tank around, smashed up some cars, scared some people, but now you're stuck and the game is over and it's time to get your ass out of the tank right the fuck now, and if you refuse to do that and keep trying to get things rolling again so maybe you will end up killing someone, well, you're just not being reasonable. So when someone comes along and puts a bullet in your head, you can't be acting all surprised when the independent oversight committee has a look at things and says it was justified.
I don't see what's so complicated about it.
Uncia on 15/10/2006 at 17:47
Quote Posted by Malygris
There comes a point during the commission of a criminal act at which the perpetrator of said act gives up his right to a non-lethal takedown.
No, there isn't. A lethal take-down is only justified if it's reasonably clear they won't go down without added casualties (so, if they're waving around a firearm, or lunging at people with box cutters). The moment that factor is gone there's absolutely no justification for shooting someone.
Given that it was likely pretty damned hard to see whether or not the guy had a firearm in that tank I'd say the officer's actions were justified, but the whole "he deserved to be shot!" line is utter bullshit. Cops aren't judge and jury.
[edit] Or, shouldn't be. If they are then your country has idiotic laws.
Malygris on 15/10/2006 at 18:11
You're missing my point, which I thought would be fairly clear that the right to a non-lethal takedown is given up at precisely the moment when it becomes "reasonably clear that they won't go down without added casualties." It has nothing to do with whether someone "deserves" to be shot (although I'd say it's often the case), it's a question of assessing further risk, both to the officers involved and the public as a whole.
Jonesy on 15/10/2006 at 20:05
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
OK... So, assuming that using a gun was the only feasable option, tell me again why it was necessary to shoot him in the head to stop him. You can't operate a tank or gun with shot up arms.
When using a pistol, you aim for the center of the body mass, the torso. Even from 8 feet, there's been cases of officers unloading entire clips and not hitting a thing. Plus the fact that if he missed (an arm is a much smaller target than the chest), the guy would have the chance to return fire. Considering that the guy had shown blatant disregard for property and human life in stealing a tank and driving it around town smashing things and nearly killing people, I don't see how the officers could have taken the risk. They aimed for whatever would take the guy down and stop him from picking up whatever he may have been armed with and firing back.
There's also the fact that trying to hit somebody in the chest is a little hard when you're almost directly above them.
With a shotgun, it's a whole different story. Depending on the pellet type (birdshot, buckshoot 00, etc), you have an amount of spread at that distance. Even if they were aiming for the guy's arm, chances are half the pellets would have ended up in his head anyways.
SubJeff on 15/10/2006 at 20:11
But that's not what you said:
Quote:
and maybe somebody somewhere learned the lesson: if you don't want to be shot by the cops, don't fucking attack them with knives.
Don't you think that in this situation he could just have easily been shot in the leg? A thigh shot would have taken him down and unless he was right ontop of someone meaning it was a draw and fire situation killing is just not needed. I feel that a lethal take-down is rarely indicated in fact. Whats wrong with a leg or arm shot?
Mortal Monkey on 15/10/2006 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Jonesy
Even from 8 feet, there's been cases of officers unloading entire clips and not hitting a thing.
You Sir, have been playing too much SWAT.
Also, a M16 isn't the most practical firearm you could bring in a tank.
TTK12G3 on 15/10/2006 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Jonesy
When using a pistol....
Let me just say that you have to be pretty fucking stupid or blind to miss an a shoulder at POINT BLANK RANGE. Moreover, a tank is pretty cramped, so its not like Nelson could have moved out of the way.
Sinister Handed on 16/10/2006 at 04:56
The fact that this guy was still attempting to free a 57 ton tank on a freeway full of civillians pretty much called for the use of lethal force. Using CS or OC doesn't guarantee an end to the threat as it doesn't affect everyone in the same way, especially those high on meth. It's pretty unlikely you could go hands on with the driver without risking an officer's safety since the space is far too confined to maneuver.
Also, when shooting center mass, you're only aiming for the center of what's exposed. So if his head is the only visible target, you aim for the center of the head. Excluding snipers, you ALWAYS train for center mass because it's the most reliable way to make sure you hit your target and in turn end the threat. Police officers don't usually have the luxury of taking the time to line up their sights.
Striking someone in the head with a baton is also against protocol (at least in this area) except in an extreme life or death situation. Though it doesn't really apply here due to the cramped interior of a tank cockpit.
Jonesy on 16/10/2006 at 11:22
Quote Posted by TTK12G3
Let me just say that you have to be pretty fucking stupid or blind to miss an a shoulder at POINT BLANK RANGE. Moreover, a tank is pretty cramped, so its not like Nelson could have moved out of the way.
There have been cases where cops are
literally less than 10 feet away, unloaded an entire clip, and not hit a thing. If your adrenaline gets up and you weren't expecting a response that needed lethal force, then the chances of you having time to aim aren't that good. Having time to think about what you're going to do and aim means the difference between a suspect on the ground and you experiencing the click of death after expending 13-20 rounds.
